I am limiting the time to argue to 24 hours because since this is a current event, it would likely be over by the time we finish the debate if we each took 2-3 days to post our argument. I'm also limiting the voting period to 3 days for the same reason

I believe the recounts will not have any effect on the outcome of this election. I think Donald Trump will still win the presidency. I do not, however, think the recounts are a waste of time. I consider it important every vote is counted properly despite that I don't think it will have an effect.

I am not arguing that Hillary rigged the election. This is irrelevant. Please be sure to argue for your actual position in round 2, which should be that the recounts will change the results of the election.

I don't believe the recounts will change the outcome of the election because in order for Hillary Clinton to win at this point, all three of the aforementioned states will have to come out as Hillary actually winning. The chances that all of the three states will do this seems very small. Perhaps 1 will, but that won't be enough for Hillary to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Donald Trump will still have more than 270 even if one or two of those states is lost.

The recent objection is with the voting machines themselves, and some computer experts believe many voting machines in each of the aforementioned states have been hacked. However, while it is true that the voting machines are pretty archaic, for they use a Windows 2000 style of programming, almost none are connected to the internet [1] and cannot be hacked that way. In order for them to be hacked, the person would have to have access to the voting machine or the voting cards and tamper with either. The likelihood that this occurred in all three states in a widespread enough of a manner to effect the election seems slim. It would take a lot of coordination, and people would have had to have had access to either of those two things, which are under strict protection by the states they reside in up until election day. And on election day, poll workers are watching the machines the entire time.

Bottom line, is that it seems very unlikely any such hacking occurred on such a large scale, and it doesn't seem likely all three of the states will end up going to Hillary Clinton

"The recount in Wisconsin, and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states. No recount ever changes thousands of votes. I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing the official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824, but in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress."